4 ms·

While I disagree with the censorship and removal of the entire post, I can't see why they couldn't reach a compromise where the photo is censored to either blur

While I disagree with the censorship and removal of the entire post, I can't see why they couldn't reach a compromise where the photo is censored to either blur or obscure the nudity yet still retain the message. Keeping it obvious that Kim Phuc is nude, while actually censoring the specific nude areas that Facebook disallows, would retain the message and historical significance. The approach Facebook should have taken was to remove/censor the photo itself but keep the post and all relevant discussion unmodified, until a photo/set of photos that abide by their terms was added to replace the offending images. The message isn't that Facebook is censoring war discussion and history, it's that some content of the images themselves are not permitted and that content should be what is censored.

DanBC 10y ago
> I can't see why they couldn't reach a compromise It's one of the most famous war photos ever. Facebook's photo rules are baffling. They've gone from allowing beheading videos and banning breastfeeding, to allowing breast feeding but banning a famous war photo.
vidarh 10y ago
One of the articles posted to criticise the censorship actually as part of the criticism includes a version of the picture censored with a Facebook logo covering her genitals. But I don't agree with you. The point is that this is part of a wider pattern where speech which is legal, and sometimes important (and sometimes not) is being unilaterally censored by Facebook. This would have been fine when Facebook was small and inconsequential. But given their size, they now have a lot of power to reduce the dissemination of information. That makes the debate important. A lot of countries, for example, has strict laws surrounding ownership of media in order to ensure that no single party can dominate the media landscape, or to restrict foreign influence on their media (e.g. the reason Rupert Murdoch is a US citizen is because of US media ownership restrictions). To the extent Facebook is rising to this level of power and defacto becoming one of the largest media distribution channels, if they censor - and become editors - they should expect to find themselves eventually hit by similar restrictions, as they may be on the road to becoming a substantial challenge to democracy.
TheCoreh 10y ago
Why should nudity be disallowed in the first place, though? The photo is clearly not sexual or pornographic. As for censoring it partially: Are we really totally fine with seeing someone burned by napalm, just not with seeing their genitals? The photo is arguably one of the most famous pieces of photojournalism, and helped shape our civilization. I remember seeing it for the first time in my elementary school history book, even: it can't be that inappropriate. I understand why they wouldn't want Facebook to degenerate into a porn (or borderline porn) filled website. I think they simply are relying too much on automated systems to remove content, and don't have a good appeal system in place.

DanBC 10y ago

> I can't see why they couldn't reach a compromise It's one of the most famous war photos ever. Facebook's photo rules are baffling. They've gone from allowing beheading videos and banning breastfeeding, to allowing breast feeding but banning a famous war photo.

vidarh 10y ago

One of the articles posted to criticise the censorship actually as part of the criticism includes a version of the picture censored with a Facebook logo covering her genitals. But I don't agree with you. The point is that this is part of a wider pattern where speech which is legal, and sometimes important (and sometimes not) is being unilaterally censored by Facebook. This would have been fine when Facebook was small and inconsequential. But given their size, they now have a lot of power to reduce the dissemination of information. That makes the debate important. A lot of countries, for example, has strict laws surrounding ownership of media in order to ensure that no single party can dominate the media landscape, or to restrict foreign influence on their media (e.g. the reason Rupert Murdoch is a US citizen is because of US media ownership restrictions). To the extent Facebook is rising to this level of power and defacto becoming one of the largest media distribution channels, if they censor - and become editors - they should expect to find themselves eventually hit by similar restrictions, as they may be on the road to becoming a substantial challenge to democracy.

TheCoreh 10y ago

Why should nudity be disallowed in the first place, though? The photo is clearly not sexual or pornographic. As for censoring it partially: Are we really totally fine with seeing someone burned by napalm, just not with seeing their genitals? The photo is arguably one of the most famous pieces of photojournalism, and helped shape our civilization. I remember seeing it for the first time in my elementary school history book, even: it can't be that inappropriate. I understand why they wouldn't want Facebook to degenerate into a porn (or borderline porn) filled website. I think they simply are relying too much on automated systems to remove content, and don't have a good appeal system in place.